INTRODUCTION. Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a frequent issue in non invasivemechanical ventilation (NIV) and leaks at the patient-mask interface play a major role in itspathogenesis. NIV algorithms alleviate the deleterious impact of leaks and improve patient-ventilator interaction. Neurally adusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), a neurally triggered modethat avoids interferences between leaks and the usual pneumatic trigger, could further improvepatient-ventilator interaction in NIV patients.OBJECTIVES. To evaluate the feasibility ofNAVAin patients receiving a prophylactic postextubationNIV and to compare the respective impact ofPSVandNAVAwith and withoutNIValgorithm on patient-ventilator interaction.METHODS. Prospective study conducted in 16 beds adult critical care unit (ICU) in a tertiaryuniversity hospital. Over a 2 months period, were included 17 adult medical ICU patientsextubated for less than 2 h and in whom a prophylactic post-extubation NIV was indicated.Patients were randomly mechanically ventilated for 10 min with: PSV without NIV algorithm(PSV-NIV-), PSV with NIV algorithm (PSV-NIV+),NAVAwithout NIV algorithm (NAVANIV-)and NAVA with NIV algorithm (NAVA-NIV+). Breathing pattern descriptors, diaphragmelectrical activity, leaks volume, inspiratory trigger delay (Tdinsp), inspiratory time inexcess (Tiexcess) and the five main asynchronies were quantified. Asynchrony index (AI) andasynchrony index influenced by leaks (AIleaks) were computed.RESULTS. Peak inspiratory pressure and diaphragm electrical activity were similar in thefour conditions. With both PSV and NAVA, NIV algorithm significantly reduced the level ofleak (p\0.01). Tdinsp was not affected by NIV algorithm but was shorter in NAVA than inPSV (p\0.01). Tiexcess was shorter in NAVA and PSV-NIV+ than in PSV-NIV- (p\0.05).The prevalence of double triggering was significantly lower in PSV-NIV+ than in NAVANIV+.As compared to PSV,NAVAsignificantly reduced the prevalence of premature cyclingand late cycling while NIV algorithm did not influenced premature cycling. AI was not affectedby NIV algorithm but was significantly lower in NAVA than in PSV (p\0.05). AIleaks wasquasi null with NAVA and significantly lower than in PSV (p\0.05).CONCLUSIONS. NAVA is feasible in patients receiving a post-extubation prophylacticNIV. NAVA and NIV improve patient-ventilator synchrony in different manners. NAVANIV+offers the best patient-ventilator interaction. Clinical studies are required to assess thepotential clinical benefit of NAVA in patients receiving NIV.